Saturday, December 24, 2011

Ron Paul Revolutionizes Political Dialogue

Ron Paul is phenomenal. In the past six months, friends who watch television news tell me, the line has been "he can't win." Kingston, New York's crusading newspaper publisher Mike Marnell gave his response in a bold headline to The Lincoln Eagle's 18,000 readers: "Ron Paul Can Win!" Iowa now supports Marnell's prophecy. According to the left-leaning Huffington Post, which has been more open minded toward Paul's pro-freedom views than Fox's militaristic socialists:

Paul is currently leading the Republican presidential field in Iowa, his
approval rating among the state's voters having risen this past week
from 21 to 23 percent, compared with Romney's 20 percent and Gingrich's
14 percent, according to the latest Public Policy Poll.

The claim that Paul can't win echoes Barry Goldwater's history. The last major libertarian presidential candidate, Goldwater lost in a 1964 landslide to Lyndon Baines Johnson, who spent billions on a war on poverty that preceded decades-long increases in income inequality. Seven years after Goldwater's loss, President Richard M. Nixon said, "We are all Keynesians now." But state intervention has caused a declining economy, destroyed the manufacturing base, and limited the average American's income. In response, the Libertarian Party, on whose ticket Paul has run as a presidential candidate, was founded. Since then, Wall Street's control has escalated as the Federal Reserve Bank has created a three-decades long financial bubble that masked the crumbling of the American economy due to Fed-induced mal-investment.

The past century has been a reversal of the nation's early history. In the late nineteenth century, the period of the nation's rapid economic growth and innovation, when there was limited government intervention in the economy and no Fed, real wages were growing 3/4 of a percent a year, and millions of immigrants flocked here. But the German historical school of economists, which evolved into today's Democrats and Republicans, advocated expansion of government into a Roman-style mixed economy. The Germans lost two world wars but won the ideological battle. Today, our two parties' ideologies are Rome's and Bismarck's, and the trend toward totalitarianism in today's America is as relentless today as it was in 1920s Germany.

Today we don't need a Hitler or Stalin to lead America's former liberal democracy into totalitarianism. It is already totalitarian, and the media and the two party system ensure totalitarianism's extension. But there is a contradiction, for the Wall Street-Washington nexus makes ever bolder moves that unmask its totalitarian aims. The result is increasing public recognition that Ron Paul's ideas represent the future.

The television networks are megaphones of the American power elite, a nexus of Wall Street, commercial banks, corporations, media, government, and academia. The public has heretofore acquiesced in America's corrupt dictatorial state because indoctrination in public schools and universities convinces most that current political arrangements are inevitable and that the only legitimate voices are those of the two dictatorial parties: the Democrats and Republicans.

Paul and the Consciences of "Liberals" Who Handed $50 Trillion to Wall Street

When all individual transactions are summed across all unconventional LOLR facilities, the Fed spent a total of $29,616.4 billion dollars! Note this includes direct lending plus asset purchases...Three facilities—CBLS,PDCF, and TAF—would overshadow all other unconventional LOLR programs, and make up71.1 percent ($22,826.8 billion) of all assistance.

The entire American GDP is $14 trillion. In other words, Wall Street, the two parties, their "progressive" academic servants, and their media megaphone make the bizarre claim that financial institutions that cost $30 trillion are producing value for a $14 trillion economy. Given the absurdity of the media's and academe's politically correct positions, it is amazing that Paul's poll numbers are so low in Iowa.

But that's not all. A similarly large potential transfer of wealth was the tripling of Federal Reserve bank credit and the monetary base to subsidize the same mismanaged commercial banks and Wall Street. Based on the monetary expansion that will follow, banks can potentially print $18 trillion dollars, decimating the holdings of bank depositors and wages in the interest of Wall Street hedge funds, banks, big corporations, stockholders, and government.

The trend toward centralization of authority and public immiseration is now escalated in the political sphere. President Obama has signed the $690 billion Defense Authorization bill. Lindsay Graham says that "the homeland is part of the battlefield," according to Judge Napolitano in the video below. According to the video, Congress has voted for (and more recently President Obama has signed) a law to allow the military to imprison American citizens without charge by calling the world, including the United States, a battlefield. Congress and the president are now an illegitimate, unconstitutional tyranny.

Paul Opens Dialogue on American Totalitarianism

Given the extremism in Washington, Ron Paul is the only moderate, the only legitimate major candidate running for president. If the American public does not awaken in 2012, freedom may be lost. But even if he does lose but fortune nevertheless preserves freedom's remnants, his successes will stimulate the dialogue necessary to energize the movement to disestablish the Fed and begin building the long road from Rome to freedom.

4 comments:

That's a serious accusation. I have watched a number of his discussions on Israel and do not find antisemitism. He is an isolationist who favors military withdrawal from all corners of the world. This includes Israel. Usually, when I accuse someone of antisemitism I look for tangible evidence. The only tangible evidence is a photo that was taken with a known neo-Nazi at an event where it is more than plausible that he did not know many of the attendees (in comparison, the Paul event I attended in Manhattan last spring had about 400 attendees, virtually all of whom had to be unknown to Paul). That he posed to take a picture with someone at a fundraiser is far from conclusive evidence that he knew who the guy was. Other than that, I do not find references to Jews in any of talks other than in reference to Israel, which he says can defend itself better without American help. So where is the evidence of his antisemitism? Usually anti-Semites say things along the lines of, "I hate Jews."

He is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. The use of the term "isolationist" is nothing more than an(other) attempt at a smear campaign by neoconservatives, progressives, and the media against Congressman Paul.

"Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

But this Jew would love to see the evidence of Ron Paul being an anti-semite (outside of 20 year old newsletters written by ghost writers). I mean, I guess a policy that allows Israelis to make their own decisions without having to come to the US for permission must be anti-semantic. And a policy that allows Israel to be a strong, independent nation who can defend themselves instead of needing to hide behind the US is most certainly anti-semantic.

Google Custom Search

Pages

Mitchell Langbert

About Me

I have researched and written about employee benefit issues and in my previous life was a corporate benefits administrator. I am currently associate professor of business at Brooklyn College. I hold a Ph.D. from the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, an MBA from UCLA and an AB from Sarah Lawrence College. I am working on a project involving public policy. I blog on academic and political topics.